WB Superman Reboot 3.0: Christopher Nolan Edition

[Snoo]

In some instances, I think Routh is more popular than Superman Returns, and to some Routh is even bigger than Superman.

That is true. I've seen both many times.

 

[dark_b]

In some instances, I think Routh is more popular than Superman Returns, and to some Routh is even bigger than Superman.

i think it has a lot to do how brandon acted when promoting the movie.
he looked to me personal like a guy who cares about superman.
he is a real fan IMO.

 

[myway]

What about counting the money it made overseas and on DVD?

 

[Bruce_Wayne29]

Reboot with Tom Welling as Superman.

 

[The Guard]

Now this is funny, because many of Singer's supporters chastise me for saying that the film cost more than $260 million to make. Those very same people swore up & down that the film only cost $208 million. What gives here?

That budget figure takes into account the money doled out on failed SUPERMAN LIVES and JJ Abrams SUPERMAN projects. It's rumored to be between $30-70 million (They blew $25 million before CATWOMAN ever got off the ground, I don't think it's a stretch). I don't think $200 million plus is a bad number at all for a movie like this. WB was just disappointed in the overall gross. But look at how much SPIDER-MAN 3 cost ($258 million). Even BATMAN BEGINS cost $170 million. It's not like the effects/sets/costumes/locales in SUPERMAN RETURNS weren't fantastic. That stuff costs money. And Singer did shoot with a new kind of camera, too. And don't forget the "Return to Krypton" sequence. A full 20 minutes of effects-heavy film that never showed up in the final cut.

 

[Super Kal]

that scene alone was 10 million

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

In some instances, I think Routh is more popular than Superman Returns, and to some Routh is even bigger than Superman.

It is entirely possible that this is the case.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The official budget for SR was announced as $204 million a while ago i believe.

It was a stupid decision by WB to greenlight a movie that was to be the first in the franchise with that kind of budget.

 

[Super Kal]

show me the link where it was officially announced as 204 million because as far as I'm seeing, minus the previous projects, it was 250 million

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^It was announced around the time of release, dont have a link at the moment, nor the time to look for one, but the production budget wasnt $250 million as far as i am concerned.

 

[SymbioteKal-El]

Routh and Singer to return for a sequel for sure.

 

[Super Kal]

nonetheless... there's no arguemnt that it failed expectations

 

[Super Kal]

to Signer... he doesn't deserve a second chance

 

[Showtime]

That is true. I've seen both many times.

Got ya.

i think it has a lot to do how brandon acted when promoting the movie. he looked to me personal like a guy who cares about superman.he is a real fan IMO.

I think he understood the magnitude of taking on such an icon charcter and presented himself well as Superman outside the realm of film.

It is entirely possible that this is the case.

I think no actor is bigger than Superman, and although I liked Routh's look as Superman and Clark, I don't think he is irreplacable.

 

[Showtime]

I still don't understand the budget situation.

 

[X-Maniac]

I still don't understand the budget situation.

The Numbers movie website says this:

Budget Note
Bryan Singer was quoted as saying the budget for Superman Returns was $250 million in late 2004. He has since denied that figure (Entertainment Weekly, January 27, 2006). Warner Bros. has unofficially put the budget at $184 million, "factoring in tax breaks offered in Australia" (Variety, February 22, 2006 and March 27, 2006). Assuming the Australian tax break is 12%, that puts the actual production budget at $209 million, which is the figure we are using. Variety (May 22, 2006) also reports an additional $40 million in "prior pay or play deals," which brings the cost to Warner Bros of $250 million. It is possible the "official" budget for the movie will be lowered when (or even after) it is released, since the studio can spread some of the costs between this release and possible sequels.
Update: In Newsweek's July 3-10, 2006 issue, Singer says, "The approved budget was $184.5 million. We had projected overages for visual effects, and there was a sequence that I wanted that was going to cost an extra $2.3 million. So the hard, honest number is $204 million." We are taking this as the official final budget. Factoring in the tax break puts the cost at $232 million, and adding the $40 million in previous costs to the studio means that the total expense on the project was in the neighborhood of $270 million.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/SPRMN.php

 

[Showtime]

The Numbers movie website says this:

Budget Note
Bryan Singer was quoted as saying the budget for Superman Returns was $250 million in late 2004. He has since denied that figure (Entertainment Weekly, January 27, 2006). Warner Bros. has unofficially put the budget at $184 million, "factoring in tax breaks offered in Australia" (Variety, February 22, 2006 and March 27, 2006). Assuming the Australian tax break is 12%, that puts the actual production budget at $209 million, which is the figure we are using. Variety (May 22, 2006) also reports an additional $40 million in "prior pay or play deals," which brings the cost to Warner Bros of $250 million. It is possible the "official" budget for the movie will be lowered when (or even after) it is released, since the studio can spread some of the costs between this release and possible sequels.
Update: In Newsweek's July 3-10, 2006 issue, Singer says, "The approved budget was $184.5 million. We had projected overages for visual effects, and there was a sequence that I wanted that was going to cost an extra $2.3 million. So the hard, honest number is $204 million." We are taking this as the official final budget. Factoring in the tax break puts the cost at $232 million, and adding the $40 million in previous costs to the studio means that the total expense on the project was in the neighborhood of $270 million.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/SPRMN.php

Yeah, I've posted that article about a year ago. I just mean I don't understand why people are throwing in previous failures. The budget for Superman Returns is the budget for Superman Returns. The money spent on previous failures would be thrown into their bottomline years before that. So according to this the budget was 204 million after the tax break. That means the budget was 204 million? Not sure where people are coming up with 270 million.

 

[X-Maniac]

Yeah, I've posted that article about a year ago. I just mean I don't understand why people are throwing in previous failures. The budget for Superman Returns is the budget for Superman Returns. The money spent on previous failures would be thrown into their bottomline years before that. So according to this the budget was 204 million after the tax break. That means the budget was 204 million? Not sure where people are coming up with 270 million.

I guess because $270m represents the final cost of bringing the movie on to the screen and the previous costs were a 'debt' as they didn't come from anywhere or come off anything. They were a debt that SR was expected to pay back.

But the cost purely of Bryan Singer's involvement seems to be $204m.

If I can dare mention X3 again, that too had previous costs (from the short time Matthew Vaughn was with the project). The budget for X3 on boxofficemojo is put at $210m, whereas The Numbers puts it at $150m. Something accounts for that difference. I am not convinced Vaughn's costs amount to $60m considering the number of attempts at a Superman movie amount to $40m. And Ratner would have streamlined the production to meet the release date, not spent more (except on getting FX people from all over the place working flat-out to finish the digital post-prod).

 

[VenomsMom]

Then the actual factual cost of producing SR without throwing in back figures from failed projects that had nothing to with Singer was around 204 mil. Right? Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[VenomsMom]

I think no actor is bigger than Superman, and although I liked Routh's look as Superman and Clark, I don't think he is irreplacable.

You are most certainly correct about this. And I agree wholeheartedly. Routh was not the first and he wont be the last.

 

[mego joe]

SR is entertaining and enjoyable. It was a tribute to Superman 1 and 2

A tribute and yet it got Superman's character so wrong....

 

[mego joe]

That is just your version of what could be done to fix a sequel to Batman and Robin, it doesn't mean that the audience or WB would think its fixed. I believe a writer could fix Superman Returns, the only plot point that really hangs over you as a writer is Jason and Richard. Sure it's no small task, but it certainly is fixable.

I've got a script that fixes SR. But it reboots the franchise within the story itself.

There is a reason that version of Batman did not continue after Batman and Robin, and its the same reason why Superman might not continue. The movie didn't pull its weight at the box office and the fans were mixed. Whatever way you look at it, it's the same boat up the creek, just painted a different color.

I would say though, that they could have made another Batfilm with the same Alfred and extras and it could have been fine. I'm not saying it would have worked, just that there were less issues with it and no particular story point that needed to be addressed. Whereas with SR, the Jason/ RIchard story point must be addressed, and yet only the hardcore SR fans want to see it. To the 'haters' (about 1/2 the core SUperman fans) that is the turn off to the sequel.

 

[mego joe]

I disagree completely, I think it's one of the worst comicbook movies ever made, but that is my opinion vs yours. Nothing we can really do about that.

As I do with SR... one of the worst comic films ever made.

 

[Showtime]

I've got a script that fixes SR. But it reboots the franchise within the story itself.

Send it in.

I would say though, that they could have made another Batfilm with the same Alfred and extras and it could have been fine. I'm not saying it would have worked, just that there were less issues with it and no particular story point that needed to be addressed. Whereas with SR, the Jason/ RIchard story point must be addressed, and yet only the hardcore SR fans want to see it. To the 'haters' (about 1/2 the core SUperman fans) that is the turn off to the sequel.

I don't necessarily want to see a Jason/Superman story resolved, but you have to when doing a sequel. It's definately a hurdle, but anybody with some writing skills can work it out.

 

[Showtime]

As I do with SR... one of the worst comic films ever made.

Fair enough.